The best training for pre-pubescent, would-be runners is swimming and soccer. Maybe dancing and gymnastics too for their enhanced flexibility and plyometric benefits.
The best training for pre-pubescent, would-be runners is swimming and soccer. Maybe dancing and gymnastics too for their enhanced flexibility and plyometric benefits.
Zat0pek wrote:
Issues regarding prepubescent female distance runners are legitimate, but they are not the either/or proposition many want to cast them as.
Puberty is kind to male distance runners, but not so for females. Hips widen, strength to weight ratios change, centers of gravity change and numerous other factors come in to play. It is a legitimate observation that many girls who are age group sensations prior to puberty frequently take a significant performance hit after puberty, and many do not even continue in the sport.
I have observed this phenomenon with interest for over 30 years, and in my opinion, the approach that gives talented prepubescent female distance runners the best chance at continued success is to train them and race them just enough to give them a taste of success, fuel their interest and get them some experience, but not so much that they post times pre-puberty that may be difficult for them to match or exceed when they go through puberty. I firmly believe that the reason many girls who were prepubescent age group sensations fade is partly psychological when they suddenly find themselves unable to match performances they were hitting seemingly with ease prior to puberty.
I'll illustrate for clarity. Let's say we have two girls, perfectly equally talented and both hit puberty at the age of 14, in the summer between eighth grade and their freshman year in high school. The girls in this example are a composite of different girls I've actually known.
Girl A runs track and cross country with her school, plays basketball (or indoor soccer) and club soccer. Spends the summers riding her bike, maybe running sometimes, playing some soccer, maybe doing a triathlon for fun and then starts to run in August for cross country. In other words, she's very active but doesn't emphasize or specialize in running much over the other sports. Let's say by the end of eighth grade, she has run 5:25 for 1600 and, say, 11:45 3K cross country. She has never run over 25M/week and is most commonly around 15-20M/week while running 3-4 days per week and playing soccer the other days.
Girl B, on the other hand, dropped soccer after sixth grade and has focused on running. She runs age group track with her club all summer, running three or four events at Junior Olympics in early August and posts some great times, maybe even winning some medals at JOs. She then runs club cross country after her school season, again placing high at a national meet and runs over the winter. Let's say by the end of eighth grade she has run 5:08 for 1600 and 10:45 for 3K cross country and has regularly run 35-40M week.
Now let's say they both hit puberty on the same day, August 1, immediately before starting high school.
Girl A has now dropped club soccer and basketball and begins to run more full-time, bumping her mileage up accordingly. Girl B, on the other hand, was already training at the level her high school coach wanted her at and maybe bumps her mileage up just a little. Girl B beats Girl A in cross country, but by the end of the season, she has shown little or no improvement and Girl A has closed the gap a bit.
Girl A runs over the winter for the first time and again bumps up her mileage. The increased training is enough to overcome the body changes in puberty and by spring she is equaling and sometimes even beating Girl B. Girl A has made great strides in high school, and Girl B has, at best, stayed even or even slipped back a little. Girl B now begins to get beat by other freshman girls she'd never even heard of before.
Thus, as they go through puberty, Girl A continues to make progress because there was more room for her to specialize and ramp up her training. Suddenly Girl B is being beaten by a Girl A, who a year ago she was destroying.
Girl A continues to be enthusiastic, upbeat and positive. Girl B starts to have some disappointments and doubts, thinking there's something wrong with her or at the very least getting less satisfaction because she's no longer getting the same results for her efforts.
I have been convinced for years that the best chances for continued success is to train and race prepubescent girls just as part of their annual rotation in sports, and then start to ramp up and specialize after they hit puberty. In other words, deliberately don't let them post the prepubescent times they would actually be capable of posting were they to emphasize running because those times actually become a burden when they hit puberty.
Handling girls like Girl A, on the other hand, lets them post good but not jaw-dropping times, times that are fast enough for them to know they have talent and get excited, but times that were produced by a training level that leaves lots of room for them to continue to ramp up at and after puberty. This allows them to continue to improve and stay motivated and excited. However, often girls like Girl B begin to feel like "has-beens" at the ripe old age of 15 or 16 and it's at this point we see a lot of them bail for other sports or activities.
Sometimes, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because a girl can run lights-out at 12-14 doesn't necessarily mean she should yet. To do so might actually be setting them up for a greatly increased chance of failure later on.
Couldn't agree more. But, again, there are always "outliers."
sghe5tys wrote:
I'd have to see the data on that. 50% sounds extremely exaggerated. I'm not opposed to ball sports mind you but what if a kid has no interest or skill?
My sense is that it is not the running per se (impact sports positively correlate with bone density) that leads to poor bone density, its a combination of calorie deficit and resulting menstrual/hormonal irregularities. Those issues can be managed.
Swimming, btw is reportedly a bad idea too. Those athlete have low leg bone density apparently because its not load bearing.
It was done during his residency at Stanford. Not sure if it was published.
And they can always play rec soccer or something.
Zat0pek wrote:
Issues regarding prepubescent female distance runners are legitimate, but they are not the either/or proposition many want to cast them as.
Puberty is kind to male distance runners, but not so for females. Hips widen, strength to weight ratios change, centers of gravity change and numerous other factors come in to play. It is a legitimate observation that many girls who are age group sensations prior to puberty frequently take a significant performance hit after puberty, and many do not even continue in the sport.
I have observed this phenomenon with interest for over 30 years, and in my opinion, the approach that gives talented prepubescent female distance runners the best chance at continued success is to train them and race them just enough to give them a taste of success, fuel their interest and get them some experience, but not so much that they post times pre-puberty that may be difficult for them to match or exceed when they go through puberty. I firmly believe that the reason many girls who were prepubescent age group sensations fade is partly psychological when they suddenly find themselves unable to match performances they were hitting seemingly with ease prior to puberty.
I'll illustrate for clarity. Let's say we have two girls, perfectly equally talented and both hit puberty at the age of 14, in the summer between eighth grade and their freshman year in high school. The girls in this example are a composite of different girls I've actually known.
Girl A runs track and cross country with her school, plays basketball (or indoor soccer) and club soccer. Spends the summers riding her bike, maybe running sometimes, playing some soccer, maybe doing a triathlon for fun and then starts to run in August for cross country. In other words, she's very active but doesn't emphasize or specialize in running much over the other sports. Let's say by the end of eighth grade, she has run 5:25 for 1600 and, say, 11:45 3K cross country. She has never run over 25M/week and is most commonly around 15-20M/week while running 3-4 days per week and playing soccer the other days.
Girl B, on the other hand, dropped soccer after sixth grade and has focused on running. She runs age group track with her club all summer, running three or four events at Junior Olympics in early August and posts some great times, maybe even winning some medals at JOs. She then runs club cross country after her school season, again placing high at a national meet and runs over the winter. Let's say by the end of eighth grade she has run 5:08 for 1600 and 10:45 for 3K cross country and has regularly run 35-40M week.
Now let's say they both hit puberty on the same day, August 1, immediately before starting high school.
Girl A has now dropped club soccer and basketball and begins to run more full-time, bumping her mileage up accordingly. Girl B, on the other hand, was already training at the level her high school coach wanted her at and maybe bumps her mileage up just a little. Girl B beats Girl A in cross country, but by the end of the season, she has shown little or no improvement and Girl A has closed the gap a bit.
Girl A runs over the winter for the first time and again bumps up her mileage. The increased training is enough to overcome the body changes in puberty and by spring she is equaling and sometimes even beating Girl B. Girl A has made great strides in high school, and Girl B has, at best, stayed even or even slipped back a little. Girl B now begins to get beat by other freshman girls she'd never even heard of before.
Thus, as they go through puberty, Girl A continues to make progress because there was more room for her to specialize and ramp up her training. Suddenly Girl B is being beaten by a Girl A, who a year ago she was destroying.
Girl A continues to be enthusiastic, upbeat and positive. Girl B starts to have some disappointments and doubts, thinking there's something wrong with her or at the very least getting less satisfaction because she's no longer getting the same results for her efforts.
I have been convinced for years that the best chances for continued success is to train and race prepubescent girls just as part of their annual rotation in sports, and then start to ramp up and specialize after they hit puberty. In other words, deliberately don't let them post the prepubescent times they would actually be capable of posting were they to emphasize running because those times actually become a burden when they hit puberty.
Handling girls like Girl A, on the other hand, lets them post good but not jaw-dropping times, times that are fast enough for them to know they have talent and get excited, but times that were produced by a training level that leaves lots of room for them to continue to ramp up at and after puberty. This allows them to continue to improve and stay motivated and excited. However, often girls like Girl B begin to feel like "has-beens" at the ripe old age of 15 or 16 and it's at this point we see a lot of them bail for other sports or activities.
Sometimes, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because a girl can run lights-out at 12-14 doesn't necessarily mean she should yet. To do so might actually be setting them up for a greatly increased chance of failure later on.
great post: can you advise for scenarios when a girl is a late bloomer and hits puberty at 16 years and six months of age instead of 14.
Pointing to the obvious wrote:
great post: can you advise for scenarios when a girl is a late bloomer and hits puberty at 16 years and six months of age instead of 14.
Thanks. And I don't really think the age matters that much. The key is just to leave some room for improvement prior to that time, regardless of the age of onset. But at 16 1/2, she's already had a fair amount of high school competition behind her, so that may be a little harder to do. A lot would depend on how much she was already doing, etc. before we could know what the ramp up would look like. Tons of variables.
I think the biggest thing in all of this, just like the rest of the sport, is PATIENCE, something most kids (and even a lot of their coaches and parents anymore) aren't very good at. Girls can ride out the "setback" of puberty but they have to be patient and be in it for the joy of the sport. If their identity and self-worth is tied up in their performance, they're in for a tough road.
No healthy girl hits puberty at 16.
Avg age menarche 12.5, 97% by 14.5. And menarche is not an early indicator.
Period (ha ha).
End of story.
You just have a small person. I mean really, have you asked her about personal matters (one hopes not) or are you just guessing because she is small?
Zat0pek wrote:
Issues regarding prepubescent female distance runners are legitimate, but they are not the either/or proposition many want to cast them as.
Puberty is kind to male distance runners, but not so for females. Hips widen, strength to weight ratios change, centers of gravity change and numerous other factors come in to play. It is a legitimate observation that many girls who are age group sensations prior to puberty frequently take a significant performance hit after puberty, and many do not even continue in the sport.
I have observed this phenomenon with interest for over 30 years, and in my opinion, the approach that gives talented prepubescent female distance runners the best chance at continued success is to train them and race them just enough to give them a taste of success, fuel their interest and get them some experience, but not so much that they post times pre-puberty that may be difficult for them to match or exceed when they go through puberty. I firmly believe that the reason many girls who were prepubescent age group sensations fade is partly psychological when they suddenly find themselves unable to match performances they were hitting seemingly with ease prior to puberty.
I'll illustrate for clarity. Let's say we have two girls, perfectly equally talented and both hit puberty at the age of 14, in the summer between eighth grade and their freshman year in high school. The girls in this example are a composite of different girls I've actually known.
Girl A runs track and cross country with her school, plays basketball (or indoor soccer) and club soccer. Spends the summers riding her bike, maybe running sometimes, playing some soccer, maybe doing a triathlon for fun and then starts to run in August for cross country. In other words, she's very active but doesn't emphasize or specialize in running much over the other sports. Let's say by the end of eighth grade, she has run 5:25 for 1600 and, say, 11:45 3K cross country. She has never run over 25M/week and is most commonly around 15-20M/week while running 3-4 days per week and playing soccer the other days.
Girl B, on the other hand, dropped soccer after sixth grade and has focused on running. She runs age group track with her club all summer, running three or four events at Junior Olympics in early August and posts some great times, maybe even winning some medals at JOs. She then runs club cross country after her school season, again placing high at a national meet and runs over the winter. Let's say by the end of eighth grade she has run 5:08 for 1600 and 10:45 for 3K cross country and has regularly run 35-40M week.
Now let's say they both hit puberty on the same day, August 1, immediately before starting high school.
Girl A has now dropped club soccer and basketball and begins to run more full-time, bumping her mileage up accordingly. Girl B, on the other hand, was already training at the level her high school coach wanted her at and maybe bumps her mileage up just a little. Girl B beats Girl A in cross country, but by the end of the season, she has shown little or no improvement and Girl A has closed the gap a bit.
Girl A runs over the winter for the first time and again bumps up her mileage. The increased training is enough to overcome the body changes in puberty and by spring she is equaling and sometimes even beating Girl B. Girl A has made great strides in high school, and Girl B has, at best, stayed even or even slipped back a little. Girl B now begins to get beat by other freshman girls she'd never even heard of before.
Thus, as they go through puberty, Girl A continues to make progress because there was more room for her to specialize and ramp up her training. Suddenly Girl B is being beaten by a Girl A, who a year ago she was destroying.
Girl A continues to be enthusiastic, upbeat and positive. Girl B starts to have some disappointments and doubts, thinking there's something wrong with her or at the very least getting less satisfaction because she's no longer getting the same results for her efforts.
I have been convinced for years that the best chances for continued success is to train and race prepubescent girls just as part of their annual rotation in sports, and then start to ramp up and specialize after they hit puberty. In other words, deliberately don't let them post the prepubescent times they would actually be capable of posting were they to emphasize running because those times actually become a burden when they hit puberty.
Handling girls like Girl A, on the other hand, lets them post good but not jaw-dropping times, times that are fast enough for them to know they have talent and get excited, but times that were produced by a training level that leaves lots of room for them to continue to ramp up at and after puberty. This allows them to continue to improve and stay motivated and excited. However, often girls like Girl B begin to feel like "has-beens" at the ripe old age of 15 or 16 and it's at this point we see a lot of them bail for other sports or activities.
Sometimes, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because a girl can run lights-out at 12-14 doesn't necessarily mean she should yet. To do so might actually be setting them up for a greatly increased chance of failure later on.
This is the best thing I've seen in months on this board.
She's coached by Tom Shwartz so doubtful she will burn out. The man is a genius and focuses on prolonging the career of his athletes. For reference, Tom Schwartz also coaches Drew Hunter and Jared Ward who have both ran out of their minds in recent years under Schwartz. Ping will be around for a long time.
She's beyond amazing. I just hope she doesn't get destroyed by the sport and is able to enjoy every race and grow up to be an awesome adult.
Tinman lover wrote:
She's coached by Tom Shwartz so doubtful she will burn out. The man is a genius and focuses on prolonging the career of his athletes. For reference, Tom Schwartz also coaches Drew Hunter and Jared Ward who have both ran out of their minds in recent years under Schwartz. Ping will be around for a long time.
I have huge respect for Schwartz and I hope no one interpreted what I said as having anything to do with coaching.
I don't like the term "burnout" in this situation because I don't think it's accurate. I think a young girl could be coached perfectly and still encounter the problem I described. To me, "burnout" means over-worked or over-raced and that's not the issue. It's more a question of timing than workload.
I'm not even talking about a career or maximizing running potential. I just hope heavy training at a young age doesn't mess anyone up physically.
Tinman lover wrote:
She's coached by Tom Shwartz so doubtful she will burn out. The man is a genius and focuses on prolonging the career of his athletes. For reference, Tom Schwartz also coaches Drew Hunter and Jared Ward who have both ran out of their minds in recent years under Schwartz. Ping will be around for a long time.
Paul Tuttle, Esq. wrote:
I just hope heavy training at a young age doesn't mess anyone up physically.
Pretty much explains why American's are now so soft at distance running.
It's a great plan. By undertraining the girls, you never have to worry about them beating the boys.
Regardless of what age she hits puberty at I think she will flourish in the coming years. I think an important thing to look at is the way her parents are built because that could determine the way she develops physically in the coming years. With the coach that she has, I don't think it's possible for her to be overworked unless she completely lies to Tom about her training. I'd expect her to keep improving, even through puberty, and continue breaking records.
Duderunner wrote:
Zat0pek wrote:Issues regarding prepubescent female distance runners are legitimate, but they are not the either/or proposition many want to cast them as.
Puberty is kind to male distance runners, but not so for females. Hips widen, strength to weight ratios change, centers of gravity change and numerous other factors come in to play. It is a legitimate observation that many girls who are age group sensations prior to puberty frequently take a significant performance hit after puberty, and many do not even continue in the sport.
I have observed this phenomenon with interest for over 30 years, and in my opinion, the approach that gives talented prepubescent female distance runners the best chance at continued success is to train them and race them just enough to give them a taste of success, fuel their interest and get them some experience, but not so much that they post times pre-puberty that may be difficult for them to match or exceed when they go through puberty. I firmly believe that the reason many girls who were prepubescent age group sensations fade is partly psychological when they suddenly find themselves unable to match performances they were hitting seemingly with ease prior to puberty.
I'll illustrate for clarity. Let's say we have two girls, perfectly equally talented and both hit puberty at the age of 14, in the summer between eighth grade and their freshman year in high school. The girls in this example are a composite of different girls I've actually known.
Girl A runs track and cross country with her school, plays basketball (or indoor soccer) and club soccer. Spends the summers riding her bike, maybe running sometimes, playing some soccer, maybe doing a triathlon for fun and then starts to run in August for cross country. In other words, she's very active but doesn't emphasize or specialize in running much over the other sports. Let's say by the end of eighth grade, she has run 5:25 for 1600 and, say, 11:45 3K cross country. She has never run over 25M/week and is most commonly around 15-20M/week while running 3-4 days per week and playing soccer the other days.
Girl B, on the other hand, dropped soccer after sixth grade and has focused on running. She runs age group track with her club all summer, running three or four events at Junior Olympics in early August and posts some great times, maybe even winning some medals at JOs. She then runs club cross country after her school season, again placing high at a national meet and runs over the winter. Let's say by the end of eighth grade she has run 5:08 for 1600 and 10:45 for 3K cross country and has regularly run 35-40M week.
Now let's say they both hit puberty on the same day, August 1, immediately before starting high school.
Girl A has now dropped club soccer and basketball and begins to run more full-time, bumping her mileage up accordingly. Girl B, on the other hand, was already training at the level her high school coach wanted her at and maybe bumps her mileage up just a little. Girl B beats Girl A in cross country, but by the end of the season, she has shown little or no improvement and Girl A has closed the gap a bit.
Girl A runs over the winter for the first time and again bumps up her mileage. The increased training is enough to overcome the body changes in puberty and by spring she is equaling and sometimes even beating Girl B. Girl A has made great strides in high school, and Girl B has, at best, stayed even or even slipped back a little. Girl B now begins to get beat by other freshman girls she'd never even heard of before.
Thus, as they go through puberty, Girl A continues to make progress because there was more room for her to specialize and ramp up her training. Suddenly Girl B is being beaten by a Girl A, who a year ago she was destroying.
Girl A continues to be enthusiastic, upbeat and positive. Girl B starts to have some disappointments and doubts, thinking there's something wrong with her or at the very least getting less satisfaction because she's no longer getting the same results for her efforts.
I have been convinced for years that the best chances for continued success is to train and race prepubescent girls just as part of their annual rotation in sports, and then start to ramp up and specialize after they hit puberty. In other words, deliberately don't let them post the prepubescent times they would actually be capable of posting were they to emphasize running because those times actually become a burden when they hit puberty.
Handling girls like Girl A, on the other hand, lets them post good but not jaw-dropping times, times that are fast enough for them to know they have talent and get excited, but times that were produced by a training level that leaves lots of room for them to continue to ramp up at and after puberty. This allows them to continue to improve and stay motivated and excited. However, often girls like Girl B begin to feel like "has-beens" at the ripe old age of 15 or 16 and it's at this point we see a lot of them bail for other sports or activities.
Sometimes, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because a girl can run lights-out at 12-14 doesn't necessarily mean she should yet. To do so might actually be setting them up for a greatly increased chance of failure later on.
Posts like this are why I wade through all the crap on this board, because every once in a while you find wisdom and insight like this. Every age group coach and parent of a talented young girl should print this off and read it daily.
+2
sghe5tys wrote:
No healthy girl hits puberty at 16.
Avg age menarche 12.5, 97% by 14.5. And menarche is not an early indicator.
Period (ha ha).
End of story.
You just have a small person. I mean really, have you asked her about personal matters (one hopes not) or are you just guessing because she is small?
A female can start her period early i.e. 12yrs old but not fully develop until 16yrs old i.e. hips/extra weight gain etc.
Just an Observation wrote:
A female can start her period early i.e. 12yrs old but not fully develop until 16yrs old i.e. hips/extra weight gain etc.
Exactly. I made it bright line, single-day event in my example simply for clarity about the concept, but it clearly is an ongoing process for a while. Once again, patience is in order.
Crash and burn long before she reaches college.
Vast majority of child prodigy runners burn our long before they reach adulthood.
I am very concerned that a young girl whose bones are still developing is running so many road races and training so hard.
She's going to come up lame before long.
Regarding the Bone Density study ...
Girls who self-select into softball have the highest bone density. You have to go to a game to see. Different built. Different parents/genes.
My kids run. Why running?
They were too slender to play any other sports. We tried.
Why not swimming? Small flippers.
So, the option is to play no sports at all, to suck in swimming or to be injured rag dolls.
What would you pick?